It may be silly to ask but what makes a scene involving a lot of dialogue colourful? I find myself becoming repetitive and bland when it comes to dialogue. I dont mean what the characters are saying, I mean what happens after they say it. The actions they make in between sentences.

Something like,
"So are you coming tonight?" he asked.
"Maybe...sure, why not?" she replied, rubbing her forehead lightly.
"Ok, I'll see you there then..." he said.

That was a bad example, but how do you make the scene readable? Does there have to be an explanation every someone speaks. Like body language or facial expressions?

I havent articulated this very well but hopefully somebody understands!
Sarah

<Added>

that should say "every TIME someone speaks"

The best advice I've seen on dialogue is only include things that move the story along. That means that everything that's said is in there for a reason and it should (hopefully) put you in a position where your characters are going to have to react something. So you're not just writing dialogue - you're showing the reader something important that's integral to the telling of the story.

I think if dialgoue seems bland and redundant, it might not be showing us enough.

Hope that makes sense/helps.

Nik.

<Added>

dialgoue?????? :)

Apparently they’re called ‘beats’, the little actions interspersed into dialogue.

No, you don’t need them on every line – in fact they get a bit irritating if there are too many. They need to show us something about the character’s state of mind. Study body language. Why does someone rub their top lip, or pull their ear lobe, or cross their legs. Picking something up and putting it straight down again, or lighting a cigarette can show agitation or procrastination. Touching the other character can indicate hidden feelings that they don’t feel able to admit to in the actual spoken lines.

Like Nik says, it can show the reader something important – imagine if one character is keeping a secret from the other character but you want readers to know there’s something going on that isn’t being said… you can say so much in very few words.

Dee

Thanks for the helpful suggestions, I'm going to battle through!!

Sarah

Good for you!

When you've done that, get someone else to read it aloud to you. That'll bring all the grotty bits up to the surface. If you've got it right, it will sound ok. If not - you'll hear the problems.

Dee

I think if dialgoue seems bland and redundant, it might not be showing us enough.

I think that's on the button. And dialogue doesn't have to happen in real time; it can really help to prevent that watching-a-tennis-ding-dong feeling if you change gear into some thought or description every now and again.

On the other hand, the more you can get into the actual spoken words, the better. Running an eye down one or two passages that work, I think what happens is that you have a run of just words, then a pause with a scrap of description, or someone's thinking, then more dialogue. With any luck, the reader will know exactly what's going on without an adverb in the place.

'Did you come by bus?' he said.
'I don't know why you're asking me. How else could I have got here?'
'Won't you sit down?'
'I can't stay.'
He filled the kettle completely, and switched it on. 'But you'd like some coffee.'
'I've given up caffeine.' She hesitated, then actually put her handbag on the table, and began to peel off her coat. 'Do you still keep peppermint tea in that larder of yours?'
'So you haven't changed your tastes all that much, then. Of course I do.'
She smiled.

Well, one adverb. And great literary art it's not.

Emma




<Added>

Dee's quite right. Reading it aloud's the test.

<Added>

Oops, no, two adverbs. And reading it aloud yourself with a pencil in the other hand is almost as helpful as getting someone else to do it.

Thanks Emma and Dee, some very useful advice here and you're right, it is a matter of reading aloud and knowing what sounds real. Actually Emma, its funny you should mention adverbs; that and overuse of adjectives have always been my problem when it comes to dialogue. Its a case of wanting to convey a reaction in a "writerly" way! I'm guilty as charged!

Sarah

And reading it aloud yourself with a pencil in the other hand is almost as helpful as getting someone else to do it.

Amen sister! Or a red biro! Seriously though, one of the best investments I've made was buying a £20 tape recorder.

Nik.

The best advice I ever got was when someone spelled it out: "dialogue is not speech." And that's what we have to get our heads round. Dialogue is different to speech, and if we put in a transcript of a pub conversation into a piece of writing it will be all over the place. Dialogue is more of a simulation of speech, cutting out the crap and keeping a focus. But always remember, you can put action pointers within dialogue, ie.

"Do you understand what I'm saying? Do you? Will you stop reading that paper and listen to me!'

Colin

(that sentence leads to another discussion - does an exclamation mark over-rule a question mark?)

(that sentence leads to another discussion - does an exclamation mark over-rule a question mark?)

I'd have thought it depends on the way you want the main tone of your sentence to be received. If it's an ordinary spoken question then there's no issue - question mark. If it's an angry question, but it comes in the middle of a dramatic, furious speech, then again a plain question mark will do it. But when you have a sentence where the angry tone or volume isn't otherwise clear and you want to mark it as something other than a straightforward enquiry (especially if it's a rehrotical question), then it's permissible to use an exclamation.

Just don't use both at the same time, unless you're writing in the style of an excited teen.

There's no need to scrupulously avoid adverbs; just make sure every one's working/needed, and that you don't have two words ending in 'ly' close together or you can end up with an ugly chime.

I spotted an example the other day where it was used, where it was an obvious question, but ended in an exclamation mark.

Hi Sarah

Dialogue doesn't stand in isolation in comes out of an interaction between characters so to use your example:

"So are you coming tonight?"
Dammit why does he always have to be so bloody direct. It really puts me on the spot. I must look like the rabbit in the headlights. Stunned and stupid.
"Maybe... sure, why not?"
What am I saying! Damn it all to hell, now I will either have to find an excuse or I will have to go, and that means a new dress.
"Ok, I'll see you there then"
And with that he was gone.

Or

"So are you coming tonight?"
Sarah didn't look at me, just kept sliding the blade up and down the stone perfecting an edge that was already razor sharp.
"Maybe... sure, why not?"
The knife sliced the air an inch from my nose. The threat was implicit.
"Ok, I'll see you there then"
I could hear her throaty chuckle as she loped up the stairs two at a time.

So as you can see the 'he saids' and 'she saids' are not always necessary they can be implicit.

Again from an observer's point of view.

"So are you coming tonight?"
I could see Charlie hesitate. This was make or break time. He had to choose between me and his mates. Which ever way he jumped he would lose one of us.
"Maybe... sure, why not?"
I didn't speak. I didn't move a muscle. He knew why not.
"Ok, I'll see you there then"
Archie's grin was full of malicious triumph. He was sure he had won.

So basically dialogue comes out of the need to communicate, to elicit information or impart information. Generally it happens as a result of some interaction and the best way to make dialogue realistic is to have it driven by the situation rather than trying to make the situation result from the dialogue.

Best

John

John, that's brilliant.

Yeah John, that was fantastic, this thread has been so helpful.